By presenting Gabby's opinions unfiltered, complimenting her staff on their courtesy and congratulating her on her marriage, I have been accused of being a Pro-Gabby patsy. I can assure you gentle reader that I am no Arianna Huffington. I just believe in fair play. Folks from both red and blue states, Democrats and Republicans died in the Twin Towers. Besides Gabby is not Clinton or Grijalva. Gabby will debate the issues and therefore if she is to be defeated, she has to be defeated on the issues.
Southeastern Arizona Republican activist Harold Hough cautioned me:
A friend passed your email on to me about your conversation with Congresswoman Gifford's Chief of Staff. Here are my thoughts.
There is an old saying that, “talk is cheap.” And, that adage is no truer than with politicians. Politicians and their staffs will tell you whatever it takes to get reelected, especially if they are Democrats in a district where they are outnumbered and are expecting a tough reelection race. Congresswoman Giffords may say she favors a strong border, but her votes have consistently opposed a strong border. In fact, her voting record is consistent with that of Open Border advocate Raul Grijalva.
What Congresswoman Giffords really believes was shown when she repeatedly voted against stronger border protection as Congress was working on the 2008 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. Five times she voted with Grijalva and the open border crowd to weaken our border.
The Carter of Texas Amendment. This amendment would have kept bureaucratic and environmental obstacles from stopping construction of the border fence. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 476).
The King of Iowa Amendment #105. This amendment would have put more money into a Employment Verification Program that would verify that a potential employee is legal. She voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call 478).
The McCaul of Texas Amendment #99. This amendment would give the Department of Homeland Security wide latitude to move personnel to areas where the threat is greatest. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call 480).
The Royce of California Amendment. This amendment makes sure that the money appropriated for building the border fence is actually spent on building the fence instead of being diverted. Giffords voted against the amendment along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 486).
Motion to Recommit the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. This Republican motion would have sent the bill back to committee to provide all the funds for building the fence, along with the necessary roads, lights, cameras, barriers, and sensors. Giffords voted against the motion to recommit along with Grijalva (Roll Call Vote 490).
Congresswoman Giffords, her Chief of Staff Maura Policelli, and her staff may be polite and willing to listen to our concerns about border security, but when it comes time to vote, Giffords prefers a porous border to a secure one. Don’t let common courtesy blind us to the votes of an open border congresswoman.
Sincerely,
Harold Hough
To which Gabby's staff responded:
December 18, 2007
Dear Mr. Bretney,
Thank you for contacting me about border protection and my votes on amendments to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 2638). Securing our border and passing comprehensive immigration reform is my highest priority in Congress.
Our district in Southeastern Arizona has paid a heavy price for illegal immigration. For too long, the federal government has failed to secure our borders and Congress has refused to act to solve this national problem. It is extremely unfortunate that the Senate did not succeed in moving immigration legislation this year. It is time the federal government stepped up to its responsibility. I continue to press House leadership to bring comprehensive immigration legislation to the floor.
I voted against the Carter amendment (Roll Call 476), the Royce amendment (Roll Call 486) and the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call 490) to the DHS Appropriations bill because I believe a piecemeal approach to this issue, such as limiting federal action to building a fence, will not be sufficient. That is why I am a cosponsor of the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act of 2007 (H.R. 1645), a comprehensive reform bill that includes the following strong security and enforcement provisions:
o 11,600 new Border Patrol Agents,
o utilize Department of Defense surveillance equipment to control the U.S. border,
o build vehicle barriers and facilities to achieve control of the U.S. borders,
o deploy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to patrol the U.S. border,
o make it a crime to evade border inspection personnel, and
o develop intergovernmental programs targeting violent criminal aliens, border security, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and gang activity.
I voted against the King amendment (Roll Call 478) and the McCaul amendment (Roll Call 480) because they were not fiscally responsible. The King amendment would have put $5 million into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers Program. The DHS Appropriations bill already included $30 million for the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to carry out the Homeland Security Department's Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEEVS). As a result, I believed the King amendment to be duplicative of stronger efforts that I supported.
Similarly, I rejected the McCaul amendment because it called for DHS to develop MAX-HR, a human capital system that was found illegal and in violation of contractual agreements by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a June 27, 2006 decision. Pouring money into this illegal system would not be a prudent way to spend our tax dollars.
On June 15, 2007, I voted for the final passage of the DHS Appropriations bill that included:
o 3,000 additional border patrol agents,
o $27 million for 250 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers for commercial operations and Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) validation,
o $50 million to improve DHS's ability to recruit and retain officers, and
o $180 million for the Criminal Alien Program so that DHS can identify incarcerated and convicted aliens and deport them.
Additionally, I launched a vigorous campaign in Congress to restore much-needed funding to our state and counties through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants. Other members of Congress and the President proposed cutting this essential federal program. I helped add a total of $55 million in SCAAP funding which was attached to the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill (H.R. 3093) which passed the House with my support on June 26, 2007.
I have consistently been an advocate for stronger security by supporting these measures in Congress:
o Border Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 2542) to fund enhanced law enforcement operations, as well as the detention and transfer of illegal aliens to federal authorities (cosponsor),
o To provide for the next generation of border and maritime security technologies (H.R. 3916) by deploying UAVs and Advanced Tunnel Detection on the U.S.-Mexico border and study additional border security needs (cosponsor),
o Motion to Recommit on the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1851) to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving housing assistance,
o Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 2399) to increase penalties for smuggling an illegal immigrant into the U.S. (H.R. 2399), and
o Department of Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2008 (H.R. 3222) to support $247 million for the continuing National Guard operations along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Thank you for your active engagement in our democracy. Participation and vigilance in monitoring the actions of elected officials is the responsibility of all citizens. Without accountability, our system of government would be in great peril. I am honored to represent you and look forward to working with you to continue bringing the voice of Southern Arizona to Washington .
Sincerely,
Gabrielle Giffords
Member of Congress
Here is what I wrote back to those questioning my loyalty to the cause:
To be offended by a presentation of the opposition viewpoint impeaches the belief that our ideas are better. To disallow their circulation furthers not only ignorance and misinformation but also impeaches the belief that we are better. It would make us no better that the smear merchants and muckrakers in the print media and in the Clinton campaign.
On the issue where Gabrielle Giffords wants to sound Republican, she stopped a permanent checkpoint on the I-19 and she won't vote with Republicans to secure the border.
Take the Time to Read the amendments to the House Homeland Bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2638&tab=amendments
Take Roll Call Vote 478 offered by Rep King of Iowa. Gabby said it was fiscally irresponsible because it increases "The King amendment would have put $5 million into the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers Program. The DHS Appropriations bill already included $30 million for the Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to carry out the Homeland Security Department's Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEEVS). As a result, I believed the King amendment to be duplicative of stronger efforts that I supported."
Yet the King Amendment passed. 38 Democrats joined 190 Republicans.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-478
Why? Because the King Amendment increases the salaries of overworked and underappreciated DHS employees.
Amendment reduces and then increases funding for the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses account by $5 million.
Proposed: Jun 14, 2007. Accepted: Jun 15, 2007.
An amendment numbered 105 printed in the Congressional Record to increase and decrease the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement salaries and expenses account by $5,000,000.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the King (IA) amendment (A029) Agreed to by recorded vote: 228 - 195 (Roll no. 478).
What about the McCaul Amendment (Roll Call 480)? The Texas Republican wanted to give the President the authority to move DHS people around in a state of emergency such as an like 9/11 or a tsunami or another Katrina. But the Courts blocked Bush's agency rules saying it violates their collective bargaining agreements. A vote from the Congress would trump the Courts of Appeals ruling. Instead, Gabby voted with the unions.
Let's look at the other Amendments which Gabby called "piecemeal":
Carter amendment (Roll Call 476)
Amendment sought to strike language regarding border fencing requirements under the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology heading.
Proposed: Jun 14, 2007. Rejected: Jun 15, 2007.
An amendment to strike the proviso regarding border fencing requirements under the Border Security, Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology heading.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the Carter amendment (A024) Failed by recorded vote: 190 - 233 (Roll no. 476).
This amendment does not sound very piecemeal to me. This is what the Texas Republican wrote about the amendment he authored:
“Illegal immigrants are entering our country in increasing numbers because our border is not secure. We need to get this fence built to change that. The people of Texas and the people of American want this fence up,” said Congressman Carter. “There is no reason for this holdup; Congress authorized this fence to be built, and it’s not getting done. This Amendment will ensure that DHS doesn’t have to jump through hoops to get this fence built.”
The Appropriations bill includes three provisions that appear to be good oversight, but in reality are bureaucratic roadblocks that effectively kill construction of fencing and border infrastructure. The Carter Amendment would eliminate these bureaucratic roadblocks designed to thwart fence construction, but still require good government sunshine and oversight of the process while taking much-needed steps to secure the border while protecting local and environmental values.
Specifically, the Carter Amendment:
* Removes the funding restriction on the requirement of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to coordinate with the Department of the Interior (DOI) to minimize impact on wildlife and natural resources. The Carter Amendment directs DHS to continue coordinating with DOI, but does not withhold funding;
* Changes the requirement on DHS to solicit “advice and support” from State and local communities. The Carter Amendment directs DHS to solicit “input” from state and local communities and removes the funding restriction on this provision; and
* Removes the funding restriction on DHS requiring DHS to publish in the Federal Register when the Secretary uses his environmental waiver authority, and then no funds will be used for 15 days after it is published. The Carter Amendment still requires DHS to publish when the waiver is used, but removes the 15-day funding restriction.
http://carter.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=68623
By looking at what Gabby has said to her constituents and looking at the facts, one can see that Gabby is being disingenuous or incompetent.
Let's look at Royce (Roll Call 486)
An amendment to prohibit funds made available for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology from being used for anything but at least two layers of reinforced fencing and roads.
Proposed: Jun 15, 2007. Rejected: Jun 15, 2007.
Jun 15, 2007. On agreeing to the Royce amendment (A046) Failed by recorded vote: 149 - 272 (Roll no. 486).
She characterizes this amendment as "limiting federal action to building a fence" and then qualifying this action "not . . . sufficient." But doesn't this amendment sound like good oversight? Isn't that what Nancy Pelosi and her Congress pledged to do? In the words of Iris Lynch "Acta Non Verba."
Lastly let's look at the Motion to Recommit (Roll Call 490). What is a Motion to ReCommit? A Motion To Recommit is the Minority attempt to kill a bill.
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/recommit_mot.htm
The motion failed and the bill passed. This is what the Heritage Foundation has said about the House Homeland Security bill:
the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY08, the price of safety is $36.3 billion dollars - $2.5 billion more than what safety cost us last year and $2.1 billion more than what the President thinks we need. . . . Congress decides to turn state and local first-responder grant programs into de facto revenue-sharing programs, this raises some serious concerns about fiscal responsibility.
This critique points to fiscal irresponsibility rather than a piecemeal approach.
You are welcome to question my loyalty and my motives, but read the bill, listen to the opposition and form an informed opinion. I think it is important to disagree and demonstrate your difference, but there comes a point where you have to unify around people you may not like for a cause that transcends us. Border security is such an issue. It is very important to close the border and secure our homeland. Electing officials that represent our values is more important than walking lock step with rogue Congress that is only in power on a temporary visa.
No comments:
Post a Comment